The old intro works great as an outro, and definitely keeps the unique charm of this channel You are one of my favorite space educators, with a unique analytics based approach Keep up the amazing work
Pride and Prejudice was not in today's Bingo card, but I agree the 1995 version with Colin Firth & Jennifer Ehle is by far the best screen version - leagues better than the Keira Knightley one.
1:25 Paused the video right there and joined the new subreddit. Yay! Sometimes my answers in r/spacexlounge consist of a link to an Eager Space video, especially "Commercial Moon - Starship, Dragon, and Starliner". Those will give a more through answer than I can - and one that's backed up magnitudes better than I could do.
I love this channel! It s nerdy space stuff that is well explained for other lower level budding polymaths. When I try to talk about some of this stuff to anyone else their eyes quickly glaze over. Keep up the videos, much appreciated.
Made a new friend 2 years ago and we both love astronomy and spacex. So great to finally find someone, but I'm a bigger nerd on spacex and kris has a much better grip on such things as orbital dynamics, so I hope you find a kris
First book is great, second book is okay, third book is a weird diatribe against south americans and the humans gets stupid, but the real problem is that there is no fourth book.
A video on electric propulsion for larger spacecraft (perhaps crewed) would be cool. Personally I'm doubtful about them, but it wouldn't be the first time you've changed my mind.
HEY , I have watched the Sabor program for at least 10 years. They did go out of business once years ago, probable 230 years ago. They had a Brake through with the incredible cooling system they developt to cool there fuel to a ignision point they needed. I do know the Secret Air Force project gave yjem 90 milliom back then and the ESA gave them 60 or so million. But I have not heard anything lately.
these video's are great, please keep uploading. i can't think of any other youtube channel that explains the niche space flight industry as a whole better than you
You're welcome. I liked the snark in the question. Part of it was laziness and that I distracted by another squirrel. The original video came about because I was tired of people saying how bad it was without any numbers and I know just enough about heat calculations to be dangerous, so my goal was to ballpark the numbers.
A few years ago I was really interested in Reaction Engines Inc. and the SABRE concept. I even spoke to them when they were exhibiting at Farnborough International Airshow. One of the (many) difficulties of the SABRE engine was the precooler, which used novel methods and technology that they have patented to use the cryogenic fuels to pre-cool and therefore compress, atmospheric air. It doesn't take much thought to realise the biggest problem with that is the instant icing that would traditionally occur when moisture laden air travels though this cryogenic heat exchanger. However, they built a full scale prototype of the precooler which worked successfully. I imagine the company has pivoted from the grand ideas of impractical SSTO's to heat management solutions since its the best way to make ROI on their IP. Still love the idea of the SABRE engine though 😅
You can build the core minus the nuclear materials and test it - NASA has a test rig that will heat up hydrogen to high temps and push it through your core design to check for flow rates and longevity. The uranium is harder if your design requires highly enriched material.
Yes, there is, and for the NASA program the contractor could choose between HEU and LEU. IIRC the designs I've seen are at 20% enrichment rather than the 95+% used in HEU designs. The problem it is still possible to make a bomb out of 20% LEU. It's harder and you don't get a very good yield, but given the goals of many organizations that's not a big problem.
I don't really like the outro--I always used to skip them back when they were at the beginning--but I really don't care whether or not it's included. I'm just here because your videos are always insightful and I really respect you and your ideas. Thank you. The outro may put off others more than me, though.
Redmond, huh? Are you and Scott Manley sworn enemies? Thanks for the very good answers. I've stopped being enamored of shiny promising things like Skylon and no longer look at anything concerning this. I rarely look at nuclear propulsion, it's one of those things that's always a decade away. Now I will basically almost never look at it. Your answers are so well backed up that one can put a lot of faith in them. That goes for pretty much all of your answers, afai can tell. Looks like you're almost out of story ideas. I'll try to think of a few. ;)
I am no longer gainfully employed and I'm hoping that he would consider that if I ever get the chance to meet him. There are mostly no new ideas out there - most of them were considered and discarded back in the 1950s - so skepticism usually pays off. The hard part is trying to figure when there is something actually new.
Just farther down the line. I - obviously - like the documentary style books if they are good, and Simberg's book is fairly influential in how I see things. I don't spend a lot of time with what I would call "deep advocates". I have some reason why but it might be unfair so I'm sharing it.
NTR not being privately funded is not a huge surprise. The tech development cost will be huge, but beyond that, the regulatory hurdles mean its something only governments can try. The nuclear regulatary commission has never approved a new nuclear reactor from start to finish, since 1975. I don't know who has regulatory authority in space, but I imagine they will be risk adverse and bureaucratic. Especially true if it becomes political.
I agree with the assesment that the development costs will be astronomically high (pun intended) and that NTRs are the purview of governments, but maybe not for exactly the same reasons. Maybe the biggest restriction is the reactor fuel. Sure, you CAN build an NTR with 'low' enriched uranium thats like 20-35% U-235, but the weight penalties are painful. I mean the weight of the REACTOR alone, but its worse because the physical size goes up too and that necesitates either a larger (and heavier) shadow shield to get the same half-angle or sticking the crew module even further away. (Also the thrust is just plain worse) This is for an engine type that already is heavy as sin and where designs with acceptable mass shadow shields are, from fore to aft, the crew module, equipment bay, propellant tankage, then a looooooooooong truss-girder, shadow shield and finally the reactor/engine. And thats with using like 90% enriched uranium. I'm about as pro-nuclear as they come and i've read everything i could get my hands on regarding every orphan sourse event, ARS casualty, power excursion, criticality event and isotope release. I'd love to see an NTR fly, and if the math says you gotta use bomb grade fissile material then thats what you gotta do. Nothing wrong with a civilian agency possesing the stuff, or even a private corporation. But i think that stuff needs controls for the same reason i think firearms should live in a locked gun safe. Even setting aside security concerns the only industrial expertiese in fabricating high enrichment uranium is military, same with the facilities that can do that work. A government, military or international orginisation pretty much HAS to be involved. As for regulatory athority, its kinda a mess? Since the law of rockety is super tyranical the aditional on-paper laws are mostly national intrest stuff or common sense kinda 'standard practice' measures. You know, play nice with the other kids in geostationary orbit, try to keep the garbage to a minimum and for the love of god don't test ASATS willy nilly lest you invite the Kessler syndrom kraken on us all. But nuclear stuff? Don't orbit any bombs and other than that it can't be worse than what the soviets were doing. Theres a whole bunch of decomissioned reactors orbiting us right now, all but two of them were the powerplants for soviet radar sats. Each one was roughly 100 pounds of uranium and enriched to a whopping 95% Fast neutron spectrum, so no modderator needed, liquid metal cooled and power produced by the thermoelectic effect. (A braytoncycle gets much better conversion efficiency, i thibk these things managed 5%) Roughly 100 watts of electrical output. Its as light as you can make a nuclear reactor, doubly so since the materals used can tollerate the hellish bombardment of hard neutrons. Or at least degrade gracefully. The whole point of using nuclear-electric instead of photovolaics was so they could be in very very low orbit, to get better radar resolution. Orbital lifetime was limited by propellant, and after that drag from the atmosphere would shortly cause rentry. The whole dang satalite was radioactive to some degree from neutron activation, but not super concerning. The reactor though, and especially all the fission products, that really would not be good to be incinerated in the earths atmosphere. So the reactor would be ejected and boosted into a high orbit, and being soviet tech this worked almost all the time! When fully successful they only leaked a little bit of their liquid metal coolant and are in a high enough orbit that we don't have to worry about them reentrering any time soon. Thats good, because they won't stop being horrifically radioactive any time either! They're probably the worst nuclear waste humanity has ever created, greater activity than any fuel element no matter how high the burnup. We normally entomb that stuf in molten glass, sleeve it in various metal shells, dig a deep hole to stick the cask in and cover it in concrete. Oh, and somewhere geolocially stable far from human habitation. But the soviet space reactors? Theres nothing between you and it except for a lot of distance. Thats one thing space has in spades, is distance. Totally fine, nothing to worry about. Also, even though each reactor has enough fissile material for several warheads and is literally floating there for anyone to grab A) space is hard and rockets are expensive and B) You would be super duper cooked before you got close enough to retrieve it. (Also, you'd have to get it back groundside in one piece, which is a chore, then put it through chemical reprocessing to get rid of all the unwanted fission producs) So i think peaceful space aplications should get a free pass to use nuclear energy. Whatever the worse scenerio someone can think of for launching rockets with nuclear reactors aboard, its already happened. Theres one at the bottom of the ocean off Japan right now, along with the twisted wreckage of the launch vehicle. Another burned up during rentry over the south atlantic and if you took a random gallon of seawater from any ocean thered be a few molecules of what used to be the reactor of Kosmos 1402. Freakin Kosmos 954 contaminated a swath of Cannada and required an obscene amount of man hours to clean up. They sued the soviets for the clean up costs, rightfully so, but they didn't actually recieve any money for way way too many years.
I'd be interested to see your thoughts on the Plasma Magnet Sail proposal by Jeff Greason, would make for a good video. It seems like a magic bullet for a large amount of applications, the theory is solid and has completed all the lab testing that can be done without being in zero g and outside of the magnetosphere. It's actually kind of outrageous that no one has picked it up....
I went and looked at some of the information. The problem with a video is that I don't see any easy way for me to evaluate their claims about how it works, so I don't think I can add anything useful. My general feeling with stuff like this is that somebody should build a micro version of it and fly it on a rideshare mission. That will tell you very quickly whether it has promise and make it a lot easier to generate interest.
@@EagerSpace I figured your 40s, young man. I too am fortunate in people who've not met me thinking I'm younger than I am due to my voice and way of engaging questions. But you've taken it to another level. However, from your reference to your high school years I know your are still a young whippersnapper to me.
I was wondering your thoughts on radial engines that produce the same thrust as normal engines in terms of realism. I know KSP has mods that does that for vtol craft but I just never understood the reasoning for the lack of a bell if it has the same thrust. That’s a problem I tend to see with a lot of mods and it’s why I tend to stick with the stock KSP experience and yes I am looking at you starship nerds.
The criticism that i also rarely hear of nuclear engines are the absolutely enormous hydrogen tanks you need, what is already bad with hydrolox and way worse in nuclear.
Yes. The picture I showed for the NASA nuclear video is one of the NASA designs, where the stage just has this framework and the liquid hydrogen is - AFAICT - stored in what looks like a mylar balloon. Then they use the hydrogen in one tank and drop it off.
More people need to be seeing your videos, great stuff, 3 of my favourite scifi books are the classics from 57 year old youth, authur c Clark, childhoods end, still belive it's more fact than fi, Phil k dick, do androids dream of electric sheep, hard nails how we are with our smart phones, and who doesn't want a mechanical owl? And Douglas Adams hitchhikers guide to the galaxy Hmmmm! Actually need a top 50 + list the drama series, azimov foundation series and is discworld series scifi Terry pratchet, Less well known maybe but Robert Rankin everybook is in my top 50 & high, but start with, the sprouts of wrath, here's one of the reviews to the top ranks of great and funny scifi writers such as Douglas Adams let's us welcome Mr Rankin OK so it's my review. Gotta clickbait those non scifi book fans 😂
SABRE seems like it was developed by engineers who want cool toys, not an efficient spaceplane.... I think it could be replaced by a spaceplane with a simple ducted rocket engine and a large H2 drop-tank, and get similar performance. China's economy has gone off a cliff lately, it will be interesting to see if their space program is affected. I'm not convinced the complexity of the 'rotating' detonation engine is worth it, it has no better performance than a pulse detonation engine, it's just smoother thrust.... I'm designing a ship that uses NTP combined with an electrostatic pressure drive and a new radiation shielding concept. But the NTP 'drive' is only one of the auxiliary propulsion systems... :)
Honestly, the real reason I have a minor in math is because I had to talk multidimensional calculus and linear algebra instead of matrix math, and for 6 credits it was a pretty small investment. Way cheaper than my business minor which was 5 classes IIRC. I have a good friend who got a math major, and in multidimensional calc we would check our homework and he was always disappointed that my favorite method of integration was "integration by tables" where you open the front or back cover of the calc book and find the integration listed there. He always did it the hard way, which served him well when he got to math analysis.
Launch towers typically has, but fot a rocket it's redundant. Because airspace is always closed near a launch and rocket is giant flying fireball anyway just in case.
nice book recommends, only one of those iv read was feynman, but also john ringo have you done posleen series its so.. violent and ridiculous i love it
I'm easy to please, I see an Eager Space video, I click.
Same
The old intro works great as an outro, and definitely keeps the unique charm of this channel
You are one of my favorite space educators, with a unique analytics based approach
Keep up the amazing work
Glad you enjoy it!
what a lovely surprise! watching eagerly.
Pride and Prejudice was not in today's Bingo card, but I agree the 1995 version with Colin Firth & Jennifer Ehle is by far the best screen version - leagues better than the Keira Knightley one.
Gotta make sure there are some surprises there.
I'd recommend "Ignition! An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants" by John Drury Clark, it's a fun read.
Definitely, though I think it's a little less accessible than the other books I mentioned.
1:25 Paused the video right there and joined the new subreddit. Yay!
Sometimes my answers in r/spacexlounge consist of a link to an Eager Space video, especially "Commercial Moon - Starship, Dragon, and Starliner". Those will give a more through answer than I can - and one that's backed up magnitudes better than I could do.
Music to my ears!! Literally did the same thing ❤
ditto
Old intro is great as outro 👍
I love this channel! It s nerdy space stuff that is well explained for other lower level budding polymaths. When I try to talk about some of this stuff to anyone else their eyes quickly glaze over. Keep up the videos, much appreciated.
Made a new friend 2 years ago and we both love astronomy and spacex. So great to finally find someone, but I'm a bigger nerd on spacex and kris has a much better grip on such things as orbital dynamics, so I hope you find a kris
I think the new outro works well!
Heh, I forgot about the Tachyon tablets.
They work after mowing, emptying gutters, and polishing LOX piping because Jerry your neighbor keeps his so shiny. Stupid Jerry.
Tachyon tablets, etc. as the outro is perfect!
Live free or die was a great read
First book is great, second book is okay, third book is a weird diatribe against south americans and the humans gets stupid, but the real problem is that there is no fourth book.
A video on electric propulsion for larger spacecraft (perhaps crewed) would be cool. Personally I'm doubtful about them, but it wouldn't be the first time you've changed my mind.
HEY , I have watched the Sabor program for at least 10 years. They did go out of business once years ago, probable 230 years ago. They had a Brake through with the incredible cooling system they developt to cool there fuel to a ignision point they needed. I do know the Secret Air Force project gave yjem 90 milliom back then and the ESA gave them 60 or so million. But I have not heard anything lately.
these video's are great, please keep uploading. i can't think of any other youtube channel that explains the niche space flight industry as a whole better than you
Thanks.
Bro started pumping videos like these are easy😭 Keep up the work!!
Thanks for answering! I didn't expect such an interesting reason.
Which question was yours?
@@EagerSpace The missing lunar starship boil off rate video.
You're welcome. I liked the snark in the question.
Part of it was laziness and that I distracted by another squirrel.
The original video came about because I was tired of people saying how bad it was without any numbers and I know just enough about heat calculations to be dangerous, so my goal was to ballpark the numbers.
A few years ago I was really interested in Reaction Engines Inc. and the SABRE concept.
I even spoke to them when they were exhibiting at Farnborough International Airshow.
One of the (many) difficulties of the SABRE engine was the precooler, which used novel methods and technology that they have patented to use the cryogenic fuels to pre-cool and therefore compress, atmospheric air.
It doesn't take much thought to realise the biggest problem with that is the instant icing that would traditionally occur when moisture laden air travels though this cryogenic heat exchanger.
However, they built a full scale prototype of the precooler which worked successfully.
I imagine the company has pivoted from the grand ideas of impractical SSTO's to heat management solutions since its the best way to make ROI on their IP.
Still love the idea of the SABRE engine though 😅
Thanks - I always love to get more deteailed information.
Outro works really well
Wow ive read one of those recommendations.
Totally didnt expect to see Tanya Huff show up in that list.
The Valor series is nice because (spoiler) the energy is not the enemy and the different aliens aren't just humans with different shapes.
Great questions, great answers!
Great video
nice
Thanks
James Burke, I have all of his series downloaded.
Spaaaaaaaceeee..... I miss the creepy intro whisper. Spaaaaaaaccceeeee....
Nobody is self-funding NTRs because its not easy to get access to enriched nuclear material and not easy to test it once you do.
You can build the core minus the nuclear materials and test it - NASA has a test rig that will heat up hydrogen to high temps and push it through your core design to check for flow rates and longevity.
The uranium is harder if your design requires highly enriched material.
@@EagerSpace is there a version of ntr that doesn't use heu
Yes, there is, and for the NASA program the contractor could choose between HEU and LEU. IIRC the designs I've seen are at 20% enrichment rather than the 95+% used in HEU designs.
The problem it is still possible to make a bomb out of 20% LEU. It's harder and you don't get a very good yield, but given the goals of many organizations that's not a big problem.
I don't really like the outro--I always used to skip them back when they were at the beginning--but I really don't care whether or not it's included. I'm just here because your videos are always insightful and I really respect you and your ideas. Thank you.
The outro may put off others more than me, though.
Thanks for the comment and the feedback.
I think the old intro makes a decent outro.
Redmond, huh? Are you and Scott Manley sworn enemies?
Thanks for the very good answers. I've stopped being enamored of shiny promising things like Skylon and no longer look at anything concerning this. I rarely look at nuclear propulsion, it's one of those things that's always a decade away. Now I will basically almost never look at it. Your answers are so well backed up that one can put a lot of faith in them. That goes for pretty much all of your answers, afai can tell.
Looks like you're almost out of story ideas. I'll try to think of a few. ;)
I am no longer gainfully employed and I'm hoping that he would consider that if I ever get the chance to meet him.
There are mostly no new ideas out there - most of them were considered and discarded back in the 1950s - so skepticism usually pays off. The hard part is trying to figure when there is something actually new.
outtro kinda has that PBS sort of vibe
i want to see a bunch of end credits skits tablets! exlers! and calming transwarp balms!
If not Nuclear then Solar Thermal Propulsion will get the job done
I have to admit that I'm a bit surprised by your book choices. No Zubrin's books? Do you dislike them or are they somewhere lower down the line?
Just farther down the line. I - obviously - like the documentary style books if they are good, and Simberg's book is fairly influential in how I see things.
I don't spend a lot of time with what I would call "deep advocates". I have some reason why but it might be unfair so I'm sharing it.
NTR not being privately funded is not a huge surprise. The tech development cost will be huge, but beyond that, the regulatory hurdles mean its something only governments can try. The nuclear regulatary commission has never approved a new nuclear reactor from start to finish, since 1975. I don't know who has regulatory authority in space, but I imagine they will be risk adverse and bureaucratic. Especially true if it becomes political.
I agree with the assesment that the development costs will be astronomically high (pun intended) and that NTRs are the purview of governments, but maybe not for exactly the same reasons. Maybe the biggest restriction is the reactor fuel. Sure, you CAN build an NTR with 'low' enriched uranium thats like 20-35% U-235, but the weight penalties are painful. I mean the weight of the REACTOR alone, but its worse because the physical size goes up too and that necesitates either a larger (and heavier) shadow shield to get the same half-angle or sticking the crew module even further away. (Also the thrust is just plain worse) This is for an engine type that already is heavy as sin and where designs with acceptable mass shadow shields are, from fore to aft, the crew module, equipment bay, propellant tankage, then a looooooooooong truss-girder, shadow shield and finally the reactor/engine.
And thats with using like 90% enriched uranium. I'm about as pro-nuclear as they come and i've read everything i could get my hands on regarding every orphan sourse event, ARS casualty, power excursion, criticality event and isotope release. I'd love to see an NTR fly, and if the math says you gotta use bomb grade fissile material then thats what you gotta do. Nothing wrong with a civilian agency possesing the stuff, or even a private corporation. But i think that stuff needs controls for the same reason i think firearms should live in a locked gun safe. Even setting aside security concerns the only industrial expertiese in fabricating high enrichment uranium is military, same with the facilities that can do that work. A government, military or international orginisation pretty much HAS to be involved.
As for regulatory athority, its kinda a mess? Since the law of rockety is super tyranical the aditional on-paper laws are mostly national intrest stuff or common sense kinda 'standard practice' measures. You know, play nice with the other kids in geostationary orbit, try to keep the garbage to a minimum and for the love of god don't test ASATS willy nilly lest you invite the Kessler syndrom kraken on us all. But nuclear stuff? Don't orbit any bombs and other than that it can't be worse than what the soviets were doing.
Theres a whole bunch of decomissioned reactors orbiting us right now, all but two of them were the powerplants for soviet radar sats. Each one was roughly 100 pounds of uranium and enriched to a whopping 95% Fast neutron spectrum, so no modderator needed, liquid metal cooled and power produced by the thermoelectic effect. (A braytoncycle gets much better conversion efficiency, i thibk these things managed 5%) Roughly 100 watts of electrical output. Its as light as you can make a nuclear reactor, doubly so since the materals used can tollerate the hellish bombardment of hard neutrons. Or at least degrade gracefully. The whole point of using nuclear-electric instead of photovolaics was so they could be in very very low orbit, to get better radar resolution. Orbital lifetime was limited by propellant, and after that drag from the atmosphere would shortly cause rentry. The whole dang satalite was radioactive to some degree from neutron activation, but not super concerning. The reactor though, and especially all the fission products, that really would not be good to be incinerated in the earths atmosphere. So the reactor would be ejected and boosted into a high orbit, and being soviet tech this worked almost all the time! When fully successful they only leaked a little bit of their liquid metal coolant and are in a high enough orbit that we don't have to worry about them reentrering any time soon. Thats good, because they won't stop being horrifically radioactive any time either! They're probably the worst nuclear waste humanity has ever created, greater activity than any fuel element no matter how high the burnup. We normally entomb that stuf in molten glass, sleeve it in various metal shells, dig a deep hole to stick the cask in and cover it in concrete. Oh, and somewhere geolocially stable far from human habitation.
But the soviet space reactors? Theres nothing between you and it except for a lot of distance. Thats one thing space has in spades, is distance. Totally fine, nothing to worry about. Also, even though each reactor has enough fissile material for several warheads and is literally floating there for anyone to grab A) space is hard and rockets are expensive and B) You would be super duper cooked before you got close enough to retrieve it. (Also, you'd have to get it back groundside in one piece, which is a chore, then put it through chemical reprocessing to get rid of all the unwanted fission producs)
So i think peaceful space aplications should get a free pass to use nuclear energy. Whatever the worse scenerio someone can think of for launching rockets with nuclear reactors aboard, its already happened. Theres one at the bottom of the ocean off Japan right now, along with the twisted wreckage of the launch vehicle. Another burned up during rentry over the south atlantic and if you took a random gallon of seawater from any ocean thered be a few molecules of what used to be the reactor of Kosmos 1402. Freakin Kosmos 954 contaminated a swath of Cannada and required an obscene amount of man hours to clean up. They sued the soviets for the clean up costs, rightfully so, but they didn't actually recieve any money for way way too many years.
I'd be interested to see your thoughts on the Plasma Magnet Sail proposal by Jeff Greason, would make for a good video. It seems like a magic bullet for a large amount of applications, the theory is solid and has completed all the lab testing that can be done without being in zero g and outside of the magnetosphere. It's actually kind of outrageous that no one has picked it up....
I went and looked at some of the information.
The problem with a video is that I don't see any easy way for me to evaluate their claims about how it works, so I don't think I can add anything useful.
My general feeling with stuff like this is that somebody should build a micro version of it and fly it on a rideshare mission. That will tell you very quickly whether it has promise and make it a lot easier to generate interest.
8:15 I’m sorry WHAT? I thought you were 20-30..
I'm in my *very* late 20s....
@@EagerSpace I figured your 40s, young man. I too am fortunate in people who've not met me thinking I'm younger than I am due to my voice and way of engaging questions. But you've taken it to another level. However, from your reference to your high school years I know your are still a young whippersnapper to me.
I was wondering your thoughts on radial engines that produce the same thrust as normal engines in terms of realism. I know KSP has mods that does that for vtol craft but I just never understood the reasoning for the lack of a bell if it has the same thrust. That’s a problem I tend to see with a lot of mods and it’s why I tend to stick with the stock KSP experience and yes I am looking at you starship nerds.
The criticism that i also rarely hear of nuclear engines are the absolutely enormous hydrogen tanks you need, what is already bad with hydrolox and way worse in nuclear.
Yes.
The picture I showed for the NASA nuclear video is one of the NASA designs, where the stage just has this framework and the liquid hydrogen is - AFAICT - stored in what looks like a mylar balloon. Then they use the hydrogen in one tank and drop it off.
I think the fake-space advertisements, when used, work best in the beginning.
More people need to be seeing your videos, great stuff, 3 of my favourite scifi books are the classics from 57 year old youth, authur c Clark, childhoods end, still belive it's more fact than fi, Phil k dick, do androids dream of electric sheep, hard nails how we are with our smart phones, and who doesn't want a mechanical owl? And Douglas Adams hitchhikers guide to the galaxy
Hmmmm! Actually need a top 50 + list the drama series, azimov foundation series and is discworld series scifi Terry pratchet,
Less well known maybe but Robert Rankin everybook is in my top 50 & high, but start with, the sprouts of wrath, here's one of the reviews to the top ranks of great and funny scifi writers such as Douglas Adams let's us welcome Mr Rankin
OK so it's my review. Gotta clickbait those non scifi book fans 😂
i AM SURPRISED AT YOU FOR NOT APRECIATING NUCLEAR ENGINES.
Show me a real one that works and has published specs, and then we can talk...
Not drama, autocorrect div Rama
SABRE seems like it was developed by engineers who want cool toys, not an efficient spaceplane....
I think it could be replaced by a spaceplane with a simple ducted rocket engine and a large H2 drop-tank, and get similar performance.
China's economy has gone off a cliff lately, it will be interesting to see if their space program is affected.
I'm not convinced the complexity of the 'rotating' detonation engine is worth it, it has no better performance than a pulse detonation engine, it's just smoother thrust....
I'm designing a ship that uses NTP combined with an electrostatic pressure drive and a new radiation shielding concept.
But the NTP 'drive' is only one of the auxiliary propulsion systems... :)
You need to give people a job for you to do project?
MINOR IN MATH.?
Honestly, the real reason I have a minor in math is because I had to talk multidimensional calculus and linear algebra instead of matrix math, and for 6 credits it was a pretty small investment. Way cheaper than my business minor which was 5 classes IIRC.
I have a good friend who got a math major, and in multidimensional calc we would check our homework and he was always disappointed that my favorite method of integration was "integration by tables" where you open the front or back cover of the calc book and find the integration listed there. He always did it the hard way, which served him well when he got to math analysis.
Why don't spacecraft and rockets not have Navigational lights? Thanks.
Haha. Cos space is big and except for LEO collisons are extremely rare. And extra weight n power for what?
@@rohanbaty3155 for "safety" lol
Launch towers typically has, but fot a rocket it's redundant. Because airspace is always closed near a launch and rocket is giant flying fireball anyway just in case.
@Ame_u yeah that makes sense. Thanks
Dragon has port and starboard lights.
Go look at one of the docking videos and they're easy to see.
E
lol i thought u were in ur late 20s
Very very late 20s...
You need help for you to work? Like people help you in the project and video on RUclips and more?
Not right now, but thanks for the offer.
nice book recommends, only one of those iv read was feynman, but also john ringo have you done posleen series its so.. violent and ridiculous i love it
I have all the posleen books, but I don't find a lot of desire to read them again. The tech is fun.
@@EagerSpace Lost fleet by jack campbell is great fun
I've read the whole lost fleet series and I think it's pretty good. I also like the Kris Longknife series.
@@EagerSpace martha wells murderbot enjoyer as well?